Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physics

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:40 pm

***

For those who are only reading this thread, I have posted a detailed response to Gill's supposed "critique" in Fred's thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271&p=6809#p6808.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:27 pm

***

The following is my second reply to someone who claims to be Elsevier's Executive Publisher responsible for the publication of Annals of Physics.

For legal reasons I am unable to post his original email to me.

Dear Marc N. Chahin

(Bcc: undisclosed recipients)

As I stressed in my previous email, there are no errors of any kind in my paper entitled "Local causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime." Neither are my results in any conflict with proven scientific facts. You have failed to provide any scientific proof or demonstration of your fallacious claims, or the claims of your so-called unsolicited “experts” who supposed to have reported “errors” in my error-free paper. No one in their right mind would consider a third-rate statistician without a single peer-reviewed publication on Clifford algebra or general relativity an “expert” qualified to understand, let alone criticize the arguments presented in my paper.

As I stressed in my previous email, your unjust action against me and my scientifically and mathematically impeccable paper are purely politically and ideologically motivated. You will find my detailed scientific response to the false claims by your unsolicited “experts” at the following link:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271&p=6813#p6808.

Every word I wrote in my previous email to you still stands.

Sincerely,

Joy Christian


***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:00 am

***

We are fast approaching over 1,000 views in a single day (i.e., just today) of our Centre's website: http://einstein-physics.org/.

That is because the juicy story of my removed paper from Annals of Physics is now breaking big time: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... ved-study/.

What is amazing, however, is that even after all this time Annals of Physics is unable to point out what "serious major error" they have identified in my paper that has prompted them to take such a drastic step of pulling my published paper off from their website. Could they be lying through their teeth as they have done before? :)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:23 pm

***
The Centre's website has now exceeded 1100 views, just for today: http://einstein-physics.org/.

Image

By the way, my challenge to all adherents of Bell's defunct theorem is still open: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275&p=6738#p6681

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:55 pm

***
I have just posted the following comment on Retraction Watch (which may or may not be approved, judging from my past experience with them):


Since the story of the removal of my paper from Annals of Physics appeared on Retraction Watch, there have been over 2,000 views and over 500 unique visitors to our Centre's website, within just a couple of days:

http://einstein-physics.org/

But what is far more interesting is that not a single visitor or interested party has been able to identify a single error of any kind in my removed paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355

Only Richard D. Gill, who has never published a single peer-reviewed paper on either Clifford algebra or general relativity (as can be easily verified by anyone) has publicly claimed errors in my paper (a paper which is fundamentally based on the concepts from Clifford algebra and general relativity). Gill's claim, however, has been thoroughly debunked by me, all over again:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271#p6808

More tellingly, even after my repeated requests, Annals of Physics has not been able to provide any scientific evidence (either publicly or privately) in support of their claim that there are errors in my removed paper. Unsubstantiated claims such as theirs amount to slander, and slander leads to defamation (not to mention disservice to science and physics).

As powerful as Elsevier and Annals of Physics are, I have no intention of letting them get away with this injustice, which at beast is due to their negligence and / or incompetence.


***

PS: Just as PubPeer moderators have done many times in the past, Retraction Watch moderators are freely allowing personal attacks on me while rejecting my replies.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:41 am

***
Two latest arguments against my local model by Richard D. Gill have been comprehensively refuted by Jay Yablon and myself at the following threads:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271&p=6835#p6827

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271&p=6835#p6832

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271&p=6835#p6835

These newest arguments by Richard D. Gill are worth looking at, because they give further insights into his analytical and mathematical abilities. :D

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:10 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
PS: Just as PubPeer moderators have done many times in the past, Retraction Watch moderators are freely allowing personal attacks on me while rejecting my replies.

***

Apparently they are rejecting two of my replies also that respond to the attacks on you and Jay.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:34 am

***

Image

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:48 am

***

So here are my complaints against Annals of Physics [this list would be valuable to any potential author who plans to submit his/her paper(s) to Annals of Physics]:

(1) Annals of Physics secretly removed my published paper from their website without even a whiff of notification to me. I only found out accidentally about the removal of my paper when I saw an ambiguous note on the first page of the paper, followed by 12 blank pages, instead of my original, previously published, paper.

(2) The officials of the journal --- i.e., the journal manager, the handling editor, and the Editor-in-Chief --- completely ignored my repeated (very polite) requests for a clarification, for over two months, until I contacted the customer service of their publisher, Elsevier, and even then I only received a boilerplate response from the customer service; but they did forward my message to the journal manager. I again waited for a week, and then rewrote to the customer service of the publisher, this time with a threat to take legal action. This led to breaking of the story on the Retraction Watch, after a journalist from Retraction Watch contacted me via email.

(3) They --- i.e., the officials from Annals of Physics --- still, as of today, haven't responded to me about anything at all, or sent me any notification or communication whatsoever. The only two emails I have received so far are from someone from Elsevier, who claims to be responsible for the publication of Annals of Physics. I repeat, as of today the only communication I have received from Annals of Physics itself is the acceptance letter for my paper I received from them on the 26th of June 2016.

(4) The person from Elsevier who claims to be responsible for publishing Annals of Physics wrote to me soon after I spoke to the journalist from Retraction Watch, on the 29th of September 2016. He told me that my article "was withdrawn from the journal" and that they "failed to inform [me] about this decision due to an internal error..." Within his email he sent another letter, which he claimed "was formulated by the Editorial Board but inadvertently not sent out." One does not have to be a genius to realize that he was lying through his teeth and the only reason for his email to me (which was marked with ! for high priority) was the fact that the story was about to break big time on Retraction Watch, because I had threatened to take legal action (in case anyone is wondering, I wasn't bluffing and they could tell).

(5) In the supposed letter from the Editorial Board (which he probably had just cooked up minutes before sending it to me) he claimed that my article was withdrawn because "a serious major error has been identified in it." The "letter" goes on to say that "soon after the acceptance of your paper was announced, several experts in the field have sent us a correspondence to report the error in your manuscript." He, or the Editorial Board, or anyone from the journal, has yet to tell me what "serious major error" has been identified. How can one identity that which is not there? There are no errors in my article. The claim of the so-called error is simply made up.

(6) The supposed letter from the Editorial Board then makes a very silly claim, which reinforces my belief that no one knowledgeable in the subject of Bell's theorem could have written that letter: "After our editorial meeting, we have concluded that your result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact, i.e., violation of local realism that has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments, and thus your result could not be generally accepted by the physics community. On this basis, we have made such a decision to withdraw your paper." Why is this silly? Because my model unambiguously predicts the correlation E(a, b) = -a.b, which is exactly what has been predicted by quantum mechanics, and exactly what has been observed by the so-called "loophole-free" experiments. How on earth can then my result be "in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact"? What they are declaring without proof is clearly an article of faith, not science. It is their statement, or their silly belief system on which it is based, that is in obvious conflict with this simple mathematical proof: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

(7) In conclusion, all the above mishandling by Annals of Physics are forgettable if only they can provide irrefutable proof of a "serious major error" within my article.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:42 pm

***
Elsevier’s profits swell to more than £900 million: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ne ... ign=buffer

Anyone who thinks that my scientifically impeccable but politically incorrect paper was secretly removed by Elsevier without political motive is kidding themselves.

In any case, I have now written a much more comprehensive paper on the subject of quantum correlations: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/14305/.

I do not plan to publish this paper in any Elsevier Journal. :)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:54 pm

Image
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:06 am

***
Elsevier are corrupting open science in Europe: https://www.theguardian.com/science/pol ... -in-europe

Elsevier --- one of the largest and most notorious scholarly publishers --- are monitoring Open Science in the EU on behalf of the European Commission.

Jon Tennant argues that they cannot be trusted.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:30 am

***

A corrupt publisher, an incompetent editor-in-chief, and a third-rate statistician. What a cocktail for the future of physics!

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:25 am

***
Scientists boycott Elsevier once again: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... als--64522

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby thray123 » Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:25 am

Joy,

This revolution of open access publishing is not going away. Collaboration in science is essential.

All best,
Tom
thray123
 

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library